Deemed permission cannot regularise unauthorised construction, and demolition action against breach of building rules was upheld.
Deemed permission under municipal building law cannot validate construction begun and continued without the required sanction or in breach of sanctioned plans, consolidation requirements, margin rules and floor space index limits; the claim for regularisation therefore failed. Where construction is unauthorised and proceeds despite notices and demolition action, the municipal corporation may lawfully exercise its statutory powers to remove it, and writ jurisdiction will not be used to protect an illegality. The challenge to demolition accordingly failed, and the judgment below was affirmed with costs.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners could claim deemed permission or regularisation for construction commenced without complying with building regulations and without sanction under the municipal law. (ii) Whether the municipal corporation could validly proceed against and demolish the unauthorised construction.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioners could claim deemed permission or regularisation for construction commenced without complying with building regulations and without sanction under the municipal law.
Analysis: The construction was commenced and continued without obtaining the requisite sanction and in breach of the statutory procedure governing notice, commencement, completion and occupancy. The deemed-permission provision could operate only where the proposed work was otherwise in conformity with the Act, rules and bye-laws. It could not be used to legitimise construction contrary to the sanctioned plan, consolidation requirements, margin rules or floor space index restrictions. The petitioners' attempt to rely on earlier permission and on pending plans did not cure the illegality.
Conclusion: The claim of deemed permission and regularisation failed and was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the municipal corporation could validly proceed against and demolish the unauthorised construction.
Analysis: The record showed violation of the building regulations, excess construction, occupation without proper permission and continuation of work despite notices and demolition action. A person who erects construction in breach of the governing law cannot seek protection in writ jurisdiction, nor can the Court direct preservation of an illegality on equitable considerations. The municipal action was therefore within the statutory powers conferred to deal with construction commenced contrary to the rules or bye-laws.
Conclusion: The municipal corporation's action was upheld and the challenge to demolition failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeals did not disclose any legal merit, the unauthorised construction was not entitled to protection, and the judgment under challenge was affirmed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Deemed permission under municipal building law cannot validate construction that is itself contrary to the Act, rules or bye-laws, and unauthorised construction raised in breach of sanctioned plans and building regulations is liable to be removed rather than regularised.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
